Is the Church unkind to “self-identified persons” other than “homosexual persons”?

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

You are referring to the CDF document. A document as broad as you suggest would have been received as “avoiding reality”, “avoiding the elephant in the room”, or denying it. The Church was dealing with a more complex situation than presented by other instances of a lack of chastity:

• a movement arguing that homosexual acts are “proper” and should be accepted;
• “love” being used as a rationalization for wrong acts;
• an environment of unjust discrimination directed at persons experiencing SSA;
• persons experiencing SSA in the above climate and struggling with the question of “maybe it’s ok”;

It should be clear that this instance of a “challenge to chastity” is quite unique and could not be directly addressed in the completely “general” way you suggest. The Church was right to acknowledge the reality. The overwhelming criticism of the Church is not for this, but for its unbending upholding of moral truth, and for the use of obscure and seemingly harsh language in describing the inclination and the acts.

Insofar as “inclination” is an act (e.g planning to corrupt the young) it is concrete. Freud, and people around then, tried to pretend that something not concrete is concrete and muddied the waters. The atmosphere became unnecessarily prurient. That addresses the third of your bullet points. What you say is hardly a compelling case to de-stress that chastity is the nice simple remedy for sins of a sexual kind that was in Scriptures for 1,900 years. The “genie is out of the bottle” for 120 years and now you get lots of people who would like to be well-meaning if they were self-aware enough to realise they are on their high horse.

Tonight I’ll critique the document a paragraph at a time.

 

[Rau]

Insofar as “inclination” is an act (e.g planning to corrupt the young) it is concrete. Freud, and people around then, tried to pretend that something not concrete is concrete and muddied the waters. The atmosphere became unnecessarily prurient. That addresses the third of your bullet points. What you say is hardly a compelling case to de-stress that chastity is the nice simple remedy for sins of a sexual kind that was in Scriptures for 1,900 years. The “genie is out of the bottle” for 120 years and now you get lots of people who would like to be well-meaning if they were self-aware enough to realise they are on their high horse.

Tonight I’ll critique the document a paragraph at a time.

Restating your view that the church should simply say “chastity is the way to go” hardly makes your case. That some would argue sincerely that SSM promotes a chaste relationship entirely condemns it! I did not suggest de-stressing chastity - rather I noted that more than that needs to be said to communicate what is necessary in such a prominent and charged issue in the modern world.

What is called the “inclination” (SSA) in this context is not an act any more than my natural attraction to women is an act.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Not to derail the thread, but the whole “self-identified” concept is quite likely to be the result of our self-focused society. There are many ways we “identify” our selves, from the sublime to the ridiculous. …

3D and Jjr9, there are several layers - self-identifying, whether a category is clear, and whether a category is relevant.

Among the many other facets of the affair, a designed-in difficulty results from usages of the words “homosexual” or “gay” which change meaning in the course of a single sentence.

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay, let me try to take stab at articulating exactly what it is you are asserting. Please tell me if I am correct in my estimation or if I am totally misunderstanding you.

You are speaking of the philosophical notion of “personhood.” You are saying that to use the phrase “homosexual person” is to ascribe “homosexualness” as being an intrinsic an inseparable component of an indivudal’s personhood. You believe that is not possible and so you reject the phrase “homosexual person.”

Is that your main point?

 

[spiderweb]

Originally posted by jjr9

It seem clear that consensus here is that the Church is correct to accept the “homosexual person” based on self-identification. Should the Church be even handed and show the same respect to all types of “self-identified persons”?

Why is only the “homosexual person” recognized by the Church?

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception” (CCC 2270)

“Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible” (CCC 2276).

“… euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons” (CCC 2277).

Just by these few examples the Church makes clear that ALL human life “must be respected” regardless of any type of self-identification or not. It is also clear that the Church recognizes “sick, handicapped, or dying persons”, which I sincerely hope that you don’t try to tell me that those persons are “mythical”.

Is there a difference between a person who “self-identifies” vs. a person who is “clinically identified” by another person? Most people self-identify that they are sick. And in most cases it is correct to accept that they are a “sick person” based on their own self-identification. When they “experience” a runny nose, watery eyes, and a scratchy throat, they identify themselves as a sick person (I am sick). When a person experiences SSA, most often they self-identify as a homosexual person (I am gay).

Since you do not accept the self-identification of a homosexual person, do you then reject the self-identification of a sick person? Why or why not?

Do you have the same objection to the Church referring to “sick or handicapped persons” that you do to the Church referring to “homosexual persons”? Why or why not?

These are very valid questions so please do not respond in the same manner as you did in your previous thread with “no comment”.

Is it possible that you are taking the paragraphs on homosexuality out of context and that you are misinterpreting them?

St. Ignatius of Loyola:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. (Referenced in CCC 2478)

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Just to chime in with “sick persons” - this is still not behavior. One can identify as American, Chinese, or vegetarian but these are not on the level of behavior. What this typology is trying to do is erase the socialization that makes for sexual attraction. Trauma, neglect and molestation frequently produce troubled sexualities. To try to fix these results in stone as immutable identity is wrong.

 

[Thorolfr]

Just to chime in with “sick persons” - this is still not behavior. One can identify as American, Chinese, or vegetarian but these are not on the level of behavior. What this typology is trying to do is erase the socialization that makes for sexual attraction. Trauma, neglect and molestation frequently produce troubled sexualities. To try to fix these results in stone as immutable identity is wrong.

So you know that the sexual attraction that a person experiences arises solely from socialization? What evidence do you have for this claim? How do you explain those people who experience SSA but have not suffered any trauma, neglect or molestation? I think that sexual orientation is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

 

[on_the_hill]

Maybe the problem is with the word self-identified.

What’s that mean?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

The reality of “attraction” may influence culpability and so is not theologically irrelevant. Acknowledging the reality of the experience of SSA (something which precedes temptation) is compassionate, but I agree it is not necessary to merely state the dividing line between moral and immoral acts.

In my experience, most people who balk at accepting SSA as something real, preceding temptation, do so out of concern that its existence could imply some support for the idea that the associated behaviour is “right” for that person. Of course that is theologically false. Is this what concerns you about acknowledging SSA?

I agree more or less with your analyses here.

However my answer to your crucial question at the end is no.

Freud and his contemporaries, who created the atmosphere of extreme prurience we have all suffered in ever since, created the concept of “homosexual” as person rather than as activity which it had been since time immemorial. Of course those habitually or customarily engage in it had this label, like an occupational term. It was the sort of hat worn.

Please read lots about Freud, it is unpleasant but worthwhile.

Do you understand what is meant by “prurience”?

Until Freud homosexuals were people who went in for homosexuality, because they went in for it.

Now the meaning changes every few seconds, preferably within a single sentence.

“Gaiety” is likewise.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

So you know that the sexual attraction that a person experiences arises solely from socialization? What evidence do you have for this claim? How do you explain those people who experience SSA but have not suffered any trauma, neglect or molestation? I think that sexual orientation is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe.

At my age I have been around the block many times. It is not belief but experience and hearing personal accounts of those who trace back their SSA to trauma, neglect or molestation. One family member was abused by her father and turned against men. A teacher of mine when I was 16 talked constantly about how much he loathed his father. Others reported neglect and just wanting friendship that they were never to achieve from their practically interminable relationships. I have NEVER witnessed ONE monogamous relationship among them. Sorry.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Zamyra and Thorolf,

It doesn’t matter to the argument whether anyone that has been going in for homosexuality is considered (by whom?) sick enough to be called “sick” or not, nor whether they can pin down any particular occasions of trauma or not.

 

[Thorolfr]

At my age I have been around the block many times. It is not belief but experience and hearing personal accounts of those who trace back their SSA to trauma, neglect or molestation. One family member was abused by her father and turned against men. A teacher of mine when I was 16 talked constantly about how much he loathed his father. Others reported neglect and just wanting friendship that they were never to achieve from their practically interminable relationships. I have NEVER witnessed ONE monogamous relationship among them. Sorry.

Anecdotal evidence based on your own limited experience of people with SSA isn’t really enough from which to draw any solid conclusions. But believe it or not, there are well adjusted gay people who did not suffer from trauma, abuse or neglect and grew up with loving and supportive parents and now live in monogamous relationships with their partners or married same-sex spouses.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I don’t know whether “crass” is the word for it, but definitions are normally somewhat comprehensive, or capturing key information about a thing. I should think it is nigh-on impossible to “define a person” in one word. At best, such a word tells us about some characteristic. Some of these characteristics might be “important to know” in a wide range of contexts, others important in a limited range of contexts, others entirely unimportant.

While I am not entirely clear on your meaning…if you see your highest duty as being to God, as represented by his law and the guidance of his Church, it is hard to go far wrong.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. We aren’t our labels. We may possess characteristics, struggles, illnesses, problems, wealth or poverty, opinions, likes and dislikes, and much much more. And I don’t mean totally ignore the issues that come along with some of the more prominent ones. But don’t reduce yourself to only a humanly constructed label.

 

[Rau]

I agree more or less with your analyses here.

However my answer to your crucial question at the end is no.

Freud and his contemporaries, who created the atmosphere of extreme prurience we have all suffered in ever since, created the concept of “homosexual” as person rather than as activity which it had been since time immemorial. Of course those habitually or customarily engage in it had this label, like an occupational term. It was the sort of hat worn.

Please read lots about Freud, it is unpleasant but worthwhile.

Do you understand what is meant by “prurience”?

Until Freud homosexuals were people who went in for homosexuality, because they went in for it.

Now the meaning changes every few seconds, preferably within a single sentence.

“Gaiety” is likewise.

Since you agree with my analysis, I am none the wiser at your reluctance to acknowledge SSA and instead only acknowledge homosexual behaviour. Given such behaviour is so at odds with the intended use of the body, and offers less in practical terms than a heterosexual relationship, to adopt that behaviour absent any acknowledged cause or motivation seems odd.

I presume you acknowledge the sexual attraction of (most) young men to young women and the (at least mild) repulsion those men feel about a sexual relationship with another man. The above is generally acknowledged as what “most” experience and their behaviour follows accordingly. Given that the behaviour of some men is itself evidence of a different experience (SSA), on what basis would one not accept that the reality of said experience?

As for prurience, the choice to pursue a regular diet of porn might be reflective of that. The preferred genre of the porn might be reflective of something else, such as sexual orientation.

 

[Rau]

At my age I have been around the block many times. It is not belief but experience and hearing personal accounts of those who trace back their SSA to trauma, neglect or molestation. One family member was abused by her father and turned against men. A teacher of mine when I was 16 talked constantly about how much he loathed his father. Others reported neglect and just wanting friendship that they were never to achieve from their practically interminable relationships. I have NEVER witnessed ONE monogamous relationship among them. Sorry.

No one knows the cause(s) of SSA. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken across a wide spread of fields including childhood upbringing and an array of potential biological explanations. It would be unwise to claim to have solved the problem based on one’s personal interactions with a small subset of examples.

 

[Rau]

Just to chime in with “sick persons” - this is still not behavior. One can identify as American, Chinese, or vegetarian but these are not on the level of behavior. What this typology is trying to do is erase the socialization that makes for sexual attraction. Trauma, neglect and molestation frequently produce troubled sexualities. To try to fix these results in stone as immutable identity is wrong.

There is no attempt to fix these attributes in stone, let alone as “immutable identity”, though one might read “homosexual person” in that way. In fact, those most comfortable with that reading are probably those with the strongest experience of SSA. But the characterization of “homosexual” relies on what the person “experiences”, and the possibility of that changing is not denied. The Church’s treatment of homosexuality is not founded on a premise that the condition is fixed and permanent, but applies equally whether it is or is not, for any individual.

What characteristics of a person are acceptable as “identity”? Things which are true and unchanging perhaps - sex, ethnic origin. But we also refer to things that can change, “vegetarian”, one’s citizenship, and so on. But all these “identities” are only characteristics (class membership if you will) and most are temporal. I don’t view “homosexual” any differently, though many want to accuse others of deeming it both immutable, like one’s sex, and of elevating it to a defining identity of the person.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

1975 Persona Humana:

OK except:

• weird ref. in opening section to “scientific research”.
• in section VIII identifying two categories of people who have been going in for homosexuality. I don’t think they are distinct categories and that various individuals will be anywhere in that continuum. The rest of the section applies to all of them anyway. This is one of John’s points and not his only true one either.

1986 Letter to the Bishops … on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

• Right away title prominently establishes ambiguous criterion. It should read say “In cases of homosexuality”
• weird ref. to natural sciences para 2
• in para 3, establishing a “homosexual condition”. Whilst acknowledging that a debate had been bringing this concept in, this para does not do what it should be doing to critique it. It should say “ingrained homosexual habit” or something.
• in para 3, “intrinsic moral evil” and “objective disorder” are made to depend on “inclination” and “tendency”, neither of which are defined. Scripture has explained for 1,900 years the way temptation, sin and perdition interlock. Those who become part of the church are called to eschew sin, not anything else. This is the worst single feature which combined with the general tendency in the other references I am citing creates most of the confusion. Most of those CAF members who take part are among those confused.
• in para 6 I think a more precise phrase could have been found than “behave in a homosexual fashion” as it creates a vague and weird impression, being a bad translation from the Italian which prefers a variety of synonyms and circumlocutions - apart from that a less crucial point than the others.
• para 8, “condition”, same as para 3, not enough critique.
• paras 10 and 12 and parts of 13 and also 15, “homosexual persons” and “Christians who are homosexual” - better paraphrases should have been found in the light of the statement in para 16 that the church refuses to call someone “a homosexual”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Since you agree with my analysis, I am none the wiser at your reluctance to acknowledge SSA and instead only acknowledge homosexual behaviour. Given such behaviour is so at odds with the intended use of the body, and offers less in practical terms than a heterosexual relationship, to adopt that behaviour absent any acknowledged cause or motivation seems odd.

I presume you acknowledge the sexual attraction of (most) young men to young women and the (at least mild) repulsion those men feel about a sexual relationship with another man. The above is generally acknowledged as what “most” experience and their behaviour follows accordingly. Given that the behaviour of some men is itself evidence of a different experience (SSA), on what basis would one not accept that the reality of said experience?

As for prurience, the choice to pursue a regular diet of porn might be reflective of that. The preferred genre of the porn might be reflective of something else, such as sexual orientation.

• erm I have heard of events in institutions, including on board ship
• attraction is attraction, including non-sexualised
• do you know where prurience as a characteristic of authority comes from?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Maybe the problem is with the word self-identified.

What’s that mean?

No, there is no problem with it at all. John was just asking his question in a far overly-oblique way, that’s all!

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Anecdotal evidence based on your own limited experience of people with SSA isn’t really enough from which to draw any solid conclusions. But believe it or not, there are well adjusted gay people who did not suffer from trauma, abuse or neglect and grew up with loving and supportive parents and now live in monogamous relationships with their partners or married same-sex spouses.

So what do studies and statistics depend on, if not anecdotal evidence? The results cited in studies and statistics are pretty grim. I’m tired of repeating them: rampant violence, STD’s, cancers from the misuse of certain organs, incredible promiscuity, exhibitionism, narcissism, substance abuse, higher suicide rate, ageism (meaning when the bloom of youth is faded you are thrown away) and what is worse, pederastic recruitment of young people into a bad lifestyle.